Allahabad High Court
NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Naresh Kumar, who was implicated in a case under Sections 316(5), 317(2) of the IPC and Section 61(2) of the Banking Regulation Act for alleged misappropriation of gold from a bank safe. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had no role in the misappropriation, possessed no incriminating material, and had no prior criminal record, while a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the co‑accused’s release. Weighing the nature of the offence, the lack of evidence linking the applicant, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, the Court allowed the bail application without commenting on the merits. The Court ordered release on personal bond with two sureties and imposed standard bail conditions, reserving the right to cancel bail for any breach.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused during the pendency of trial under Sections 316(5), 317(2) IPC and Section 61(2) B.N.S.
- Whether the absence of incriminating material and alleged false implication justify granting bail
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused influences the decision on bail for the applicant
Legislation cited
- Banking Regulation Act — s. 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 316(5), 317(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- misappropriation
- bank safe
- co‑accused
- pendency of trial
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33738 of 2026
Naresh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul Islam Jafri,
Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal
learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused
the record.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2026, under Sections 316(5), 317(2), 61(2)
B.N.S., Police Station Araon, District Firozabad, during the pendency of
trial.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives and has
no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence. As per the FIR, the
Branch Manager of the Bank of India had sent an email to the Zonal
Office informing that Dilip Kumar (Staff Officer) had not been reporting
for duty since 27.05.2026 and he was also in possession of the keys to the
gold safe. It is submitted that although the present applicant was named in
the FIR, but the applicant is not beneficiary of the alleged
misappropriation. No incriminating article has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant. The role assigned to the present applicant is
similar to co-accused Sandeep Yadav. Only one key of the gold vault was
in possession of the present applicant. The main allegation is on the other
named co-accused Dilip and his brother Rahul, who are beneficiary of
misappropriation. Co-accused of the applicant namely Sandeep Yadav has
already enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2026 passed
BAIL No. 33738 of 2026
2
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31441 of 2026. It is further
submitted that there is no independent, reliable or cogent material on
record connecting the applicant with the alleged misappropriation.
Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal
history. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has been
languishing in jail since 18.06.2026 and the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant
undertakes that, in the event of his release on bail, the applicant shall not
misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA,
however, opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that
the co-accused of the applicant has already enlarged on bail by this Court.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused, severity of the punishment, and submissions of learned counsel
for the parties, as well as co-accused of the applicant has already granted
bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to
be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail
application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Naresh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
BAIL No. 33738 of 2026
3
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at
liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 29, 2026
Brijesh
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…